And with the big brewers (kind of a redundant phrase, since ABI and MillerCoors control 80% of the American beer market) cycling back down into advertising that is either misogynist or mindless, the NCAA becomes even more complicit in contributing to our nation’s alcohol problems.

That fact is not changed by the shiny new public relations campaign the NCAA has rolled out -“We Put Our Money Where Our Mission Is”:

It’s all well and good that about $51 million a year of the NCAA media money goes into supporting non-revenue sports, for example, but it doesn’t address the issue of the source of the money.  After all, how ethical can the use of money be if the money is tainted in the first place?

The Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV and the United Methodist Church (always in the forefront of public health issues), continue to point out the NCAA’s disconnect:

“People should be aware of the way in which NCAA and beer producers exploit a youthful, healthful, action-packed activity to sell beer and to promote beer to an audience that includes a large number of impressionable young people,” [George A.] Hacker said.

Sooner or later, the NCAA is going have to live up to its own putative values.

Recently, Swahn and colleagues (2010), in their analysis of the 2006 Georgia Student Health Survey, found that pre-teen alcohol use initiation was an important risk factor for suicide attempts.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial, as suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among Americans ages 10-24 (Heron, 2007).

The long and the short of it?  Interventions which delay the onset of drinking and reduce adolescent alcohol use save kids’ lives, and consequently limit the devastating family trauma that accompanies self-inflicted death (Lindqvist,  Johansson, & Karlsson, 2008).

References:

One is the need for a broad-based coalition of public-minded New Yorkers to demand a full, informed debate on the true costs of alcohol to the state.   Unlike many other industries, the alcohol trade typically giveth in the short term and taketh away in the long term.  Nonetheless, the current myopic framing of the debate is that of competing business interests – grocery stores vs. liquor stores – with a vicious ignorance of the public health and public safety impacts.  As Prof. Nicholas Freudenberg suggests in his letter to the New York Times in response to the Gray Lady’s half-baked endorsement of expanded wine sales,  public policy that ignores health is bad policy.  The wine expansion proposal is the equivalent of a risky credit default swap.

Another pressing need is that of meaningful campaign finance reform in New York State, even in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Imagine the following scenario:

The 3rd largest wine company in the US drops a $25,000 campaign donation to an embattled official.  One week later the official unveils a budget plan featuring a proposal (albeit a recycled one ) to exponentially increase the number of outlets where wine will be available in the state.

The wine company spokeswoman asserts that the contribution is “not in any way connected to the wine in grocery stores” issue and that the company remains neutral (about the proposal which would help boost its sales in a sluggish wine market).

At what point did alcohol policy in New York State begin to resemble an M.C. Escher drawing?

One factor in this inconsistency is described by McGarity and Wagner (2008):

Reporters generally lack the technical expertise to probe beneath the contours of the scientific debate to learn whether the disagreements are scientifically credible, badly biased, or not scientific at all. (p. 223)

That problem is exacerbated when a journalist is more of an opinionist than a reporter.

Such is the case with John Tierney, the staff corporate-libertarian of the New York Times, who energetically defends the corporate funding of science in his piece “Who’s Conflicted Now?”

His core argument is that since all science is tainted by bias and conflict-of-interest in some form, there’s no need to worry about the corporate funding of research.

That argument is not new, nor does Tierney back it up by references to anything approaching systematic research.  Nor does he offer any proposal (concrete or otherwise) of what a workable, rational conflict-of-interest policy would look like.

Instead, Tierney relies on anecdote and broadside, the rhetorical devices favored by his colleagues who inhabit that murky region between journalism and corporate public relations.  (This may be why Reason magazine approvingly labeled Tierney a “Fifth Columnist.”)

By contrast, more scholarly, well-reasoned examinations (McGarity & Wagner, 2008; Michaels, 2008) have found that pecuniary biases are, indeed, a special form of bias – a form that is particularly insidious and vitiating.  As Sheldon Krimsky (2005) explains:

Intellectual interests of scientists are part of the published record and consequently, can be debated in the open literature. When a scientist has a financial interest in his or her work, however, the instrumental value of the conflict is not part of the scientific record and is not subject to debate. Instead, it falls outside the zone of “organized skepticism” that is generally placed on scientific findings. (p. 53)

Research bears this out.  Studies of pharmaceutical industry funding find that “industry-sponsored research tends to draw pro-industry conclusions.” (Bekelman, et al., 2003.  Cf. also Peppercorn, et al., 2007; Tungaraza & Poole, 2007; Bhandari, et al. 2004; Lexchin, et al., 2003; Yaphe, et al. 2001).  The corrupting influence of corporate funding has also been documented in other fields of health research, including nutrition (Lesser, et al., 2007), bisphenol A (vom Saal & Hughes, 2005), and tobacco (Turner & Spilich, 1997; Landman & Glantz, 2009).

Corporate involvement in alcohol research is similarly antithetic to good science (Babor, 2009), no matter what industry-friendly advocates claim.

References:

Bhandari, M., Busse, J. W., Jackowski, D., Montori, V. M., Schünemann, H., Sprague, S., et al. (2004).  Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(4), 477-480. [full free text]

Krimsky, S. (2007).  When conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct.  Medicine and Law, 26(3), 447-463.

Krimsky, S. (2006).  Autonomy, disinterest, and entrepreneurial science. Society, 43(4), 22-29. [full free text]

Krimsky, S. (2005).  The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary.  Journal of Law and Policy, 13(1), 43-59. [full free text]

Landman, A., & Glantz, S. (2009). Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 45-58. [full free text]

Lesser, L.I., Ebbeling, C.B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D.S. (2007).  Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles.  PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e5. [full free text]

Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ, 326(7400), 1167-1170. [full free text]

McGarity, T.O. & Wagner, W.E. (2008).  Bending science:  How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Michaels, D. (2008).  Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Peppercorn, J., Blood, E., Winer, E., & Partridge, A. (2007). Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer, 109(7), 1239-1246.

Tungaraza, T., & Poole, R. (2007). Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 82-83. [full free text]

Turner, C. & Spilich, G.J. (1997). Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performance: Does the source of funding make a difference? Addiction, 92(11), 1423-1426.

Vom Saal F. S. & Hughes, C.  (2005).  An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment.  Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(8), 926-933. [full free text]

Yaphe, J., Edman, R., Knishkowy, B., & Herman, J. (2001). The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Family Practice, 18(6), 565-568. [full free text]

The portrayal of women in beer advertising seems to go in cycles.  As Bob McCannon of the New Mexico Media Literacy Project has observed, Anheuser-Busch went through an extended period whereby women in their ads were objects of scorn, if not outright hostility and violence (McCannon, 2003). The most egregious example of this may have been the Michelob Ultra Amber ad in 2006 that featured a brutal tackle:

McCannon notes that such campaigns are designed to tickle the egos of young males.   At times, they also appear to be designed to appeal to the resentments and frustrations of one of the prime target markets for beer – the young male with disinhibited, antisocial traits (Mazas, Finn, & Steinmetz, 2000; Moeller & Dougherty, 2001).   A scan of publicly available industry market research materials allows us occasionally to peer behind the curtain and see the machinations of industry psychographic research.  One notable example is the Simmons Market Research study that linked “traditional” beer drinkers to the ideas “Feel very alone in the world,” “Little I can do to change my life,” and “Women are more suited to running homes.”   (Is it traditional to feel very alone in the world?)

Other ads are a little more subtle, merely treating women as brainless bimbos (from Bacardi, so as not to neglect the distillers):

or vicious shrews:

or indecisive annoyances:

The Miller Lite “Buster” commercial fits the my-beer-is-more-valuable-than-my-partner mold, in the tradition of the Bud Light “Taxi” ad from 2000:

The apparent advertising pattern with regard to women seems to be a kind of crop rotation, whereby the big brewers plow the fields of misogyny, take some heat for it, and then solemnly “declare a moratorium on female objectification,” as did August Busch IV in 1991 (Teinowitz, 1991), letting the fields lie fallow.

But they always seem to cycle back.

Reference:

There will be a dedicated page with more resources in the near future.

Alcohol Portal
SpinProfiles – “guide to the activities of the alcohol industry and associated topics.”

Corporations and Health Watch
Hunter College, City University of New York – “to assess the impact of corporate practices on population health and to inform public health policies and practices that can reduce the harm from such practices.”

Crocodyl
CorpWatch – “collaborative research on corporations”

How To Do Corporate Research Online
By Philip Mattera, Corporate Research Project

Marin Institute
“Alcohol industry watchdog” which “fights to protect the public from the impact of the alcohol industry’s negative practices.”

OpenSecrets.org
Center for Responsive Politics – “nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy.”

SourceWatch
Center for Media and Democracy – “profiles the activities of industry-friendly experts, industry-funded organizations or front groups, public relations firms, PR spinners, and think tanks trying to influence public opinion for corporations, government, or special interests.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Every industry carefully plans how to advance its business agenda and counter threats to profitability. What makes industries change the strategies they use to respond to public pressure to modify health damaging practices? Do announced changes in practice reflect real change or are they simply old wine in new bottles?

Continue reading here.

Notwithstanding the irony of a government agency taking heat for being “politicized” by a think tank whose raison d’être is political (“Join the Fight Against Liberal Bias!” implores the MRC home page), any science that has policy relevance is necessarily political in some way.

It would be more intellectually honest for Mr. Gainor to state simply that he does not like the politics of this version of the CDC, since he evidently had no problem with the corporate politicization of science by the previous administration or business-beholden members of congress.  Their greatest hits included:

- Stacking federal science advisory committees (such as the CDC Advisory Committee on Lead Poisoning) with industry members and anti-regulatory ideologues (Michaels, 2008, pp. 192-196).

- Allowing corporate lobbyists to essentially rewrite regulations involving toxic substances (Pianin, 2004).

- Giving low-level political appointees the power to censor the writings of respected scientists based on purely political considerations (Mooney, 2005, p. 102).

- Attempting to intimidate the National Academies of Science with a letter (signed by 134 members of Congress) warning the NAS against “study findings that would adversely affect the alcohol industry.” (Hamilton, 2003, p. 16).

- Harassing scientists with burdensome demands for “access to [climate scientists'] data and information about their sources of funding arcing back over their entire careers” (Mooney, 2005, p. 103).

Instead, Gainor tries to impugn the quality of the CDC’s science, while conveniently omitting any hard, empirical evidence.   He has to rely on cherry-picked anecdotes and corporate buzz phrases such as “creeping prohibitionism” (should that give us a healthy dose of fear?).   Finally, he accuses the CDC of  “changing the definition of public health.”  Again, he fails to elaborate.  What is the true definition of “public health”?  Did he consult with the American Public Health Association?

It is also interesting to note the that WaTimes by-line lists Gainor as the “Boone Pickens Fellow,” while the MRC lists his full title – the “Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow” [emphasis mine].

This suggests Gainor’s ultimate criterion for any public health measure:  How will it impact corporate profits?

References:

Hamilton, W.J. (2003, Fall).  Brewing controversy.  Driven, 14-16.  Retrieved on January 7, 2010 from http://www.madd.org/getdoc/4c8d4875-7980-465c-a36f-04006ed8ff8c/DRIVEN-Fall-2003.aspx.

McGarity, T.O., & Wagner, W.E. (2008).  Bending science:  How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, Mass.:  Harvard University Press.

Michaels, D. (2008).  Doubt is their product:  How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Mooney, C. (2005).  The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.

Pianin, E. (2004, January 31).  “Proposed mercury rule bears industry mark.”  Washington Post.

Should the focus be upstream, as the Royal College of Physicians and British Medical Association have argued, with minimum pricing, tax increases, limits on marketing, scaling back of hours of sale, and increased screening and brief intervention at the primary care level?

Or is the best strategy a ramping up of downstream, “bad apple” approaches, such as charging “drunks for detox” up to £532 (per a think-tank with ties to Tory leader David Cameron), or “frogmarching the yob to the ATM for an instant fine“?

Will the government have the political courage to embrace an evidence-based, public health approach and turn away from the industry-encouraged fantasy that loosening availability controls would somehow bring about a “southern European-style drinking culture“?

A further consideration may have been the weight of the game (if the Jets win, they are in the playoffs), with the game’s outcome bringing either celebratory revelry or frustrated commiseration, both of which have been known to be made more problematic by large numbers of intoxicated individuals.

Giants Stadium at the Meadowlands

Costello adds that:

… Jets’ fans have proven time and time again to be irresponsible, crude, and often times violent drinkers.  I’ve witnessed some terrible behavior, words, and actions from Jets’ fans, most of whom have been under the influence…

(Case in point to back up Mr. Costello – the “halftime ritual of harassment” that women have endured at Jets games at Giants Stadium, which appears to have been at least partly alcohol-fueled.)

The Jets organization should be commended for going beyond the usual lip service to social responsibility and actually forgoing short-term revenue for community benefit and long-term organizational good-will.

And they have taken heat for the decision.  The New York Times reports that the New Jersey-based Majorska Vodka company is calling for a boycott of Johnson & Johnson products (connected to the Jets through owner Woody Johnson) in order to punish the Jets for having the gall to limit the liquor intake of the New York Metropolitan area.

That reaction highlights the challenges of improving public health around factors where there are deeply vested interests in perpetuating the problem.